Alas, it was not to be. To my (and surely the organizers’) great disappointment, SlutWalk San Francisco 2012 was smaller, calmer and less exciting than the previous year’s event. Perhaps that’s because the original impetus behind SlutWalk — a Toronto police constable telling women at a 2011 crime conference that they could decrease their odds of getting raped if they didn’t dress like sluts — is already receding into the past and no longer feels like a fresh outrage. Or perhaps it’s because anger over the term “slut” has since become mainstreamed, and it no longer feels particularly radical or avant garde to discuss the word anymore? Either way, SlutWalk 2012 was — dare I say it? — a modest affair.

That isn’t to say the protest was devoid of intentional play-obscenity and manufactured outrage; as the picture above shows, there was plenty of that as usual. But the joke was already wearing a bit thin.

I already comprehensively deconstructed the SlutWalk concept in my previous year’s report, and everything I said then remains true. Little, in fact, has changed in the SlutWalk universe, so rather than repeat myself presenting the same analysis of the same cognitive dissonance, I invite you to read the link above for a full investigation into the SlutWalk concept. This time around it’ll be more pictures and fewer words — just as you like it!

If I had to select one sign at the rally to sum up the entire day’s philosophy, this would be it: “Hey! Control your lust!”

And the other half of the basic SlutWalk message is contained in this sign: “The amount of clothes I wear does not change how much respect I deserve.” (And no, that’s not her actual pubic hair. It’s a merkin.) (And yes, I’ve waited my whole life to use “merkin” in a caption. At last!)

But aside from the SlutWalk essentials, there were plenty of individualized freelance messages as well. This phallocentric gentleman creeped everyone out with his “Reclaim yor penis in love” shirt. And no, I don’t know what it means. I don’t even want to know what it means.

You’re probably curious: Did the SlutWalkers show a lot of Obama Love? Oddly, no: Although there was quite a lot of Republican-bashing, as expected, only one marcher, shown here, overtly campaigned for Obama. I’m quite certain that there were a grand total of zero Romney votes in the crowd, but it was probably considered just too square and predictable for most of the protesters to openly declare their support for a sitting president. One must maintain a supremely radical pose in public, and then in the voting booth get pragmatic and pull that lever for “D.”

I stand before you as a slut. I hope to become more of a slut. I know that you’re all sluts. I hope you still are and I still I am when I’m 80 years old, when I’m 100 years old, when I’m 120 years old.

If you still haven’t read my 2011 analysis and are mystified as to why anyone would say this: One of the goals of SlutWalk is to “reclaim” the word slut, so that it loses its power and is no longer an insult — just as the homosexual community did with the words “gay” and “queer.”

But this poses a serious problem for the movement’s public messaging, and partly explains why the Fluke/Limbaugh/Akin fiasco did not energize the SlutWalk movement much: It becomes difficult to act offended and outraged at being called a slut when you are simultaneously embracing the word and calling yourself a slut. “Don’t you dare call me a slut — I’m a slut!” doesn’t make much sense as a political stance.

As a result, the crowd was pretty thin — I’m not much good at crowd estimates, but I doubt it was any more than 300 at most, as this photo of the pre-march rally in Dolores Park shows.

The most interesting person at SlutWalk was this slut who wore a burka made of an American flag. While the speakers at the rally were free to bash Christianity, no mention was ever made of gender oppression in the Islamic world, where of course it is a million times worse than in America. I think her costume meant to imply that America is oppressive toward women. And to indicate that allegorically she has fashioned a flag into a burka.

But what she may not have paused to consider is that, by referencing the burka itself as a shorthand symbol of gender oppression, she was confirming the presumptive truth that the mistreatment of women in the Islamic world remains the epitome of what oppression looks like. In other words: If you condemn American society by comparing it to Islamic society, then the underlying assumption is that Islamic society must be really bad. So, this burka-wearer was the only person to unwittingly criticize Islam at SlutWalk.

Another issue that bedevils SlutWalk is what some call “body fascism”: the inescapable human social hierarchy based on one’s level of attractiveness. While some SlutWalkers decry the very concept of an appearance pecking order as a “cosmetic assault,” many protesters go out of their way to doll themselves up as sexily and sluttily as possible, to drive home the point that looking sexy and attractive is not and should not be an invitation to rape. So there still remains at SlutWalk the same cognitive dissonance I noted at the first march, in which some SlutWalkers embrace “looksism” with a vengeance, while others embrace off-putting repulsiveness as a political statement.

The Neanderthals reading this may be thinking, “Yeah, but were the protesters attractive or ugly? My assessment of their protest depends entirely on this fact.” Sorry to disappoint, but there is no simple answer: like any random crowd of people, the SlutWalkers ranged from…

They don’t need to be mindful of history. How about simply getting a grip on yesterday’s admonitions from the minbar:

“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.”

What’s lost in all this is the fact that skimpy clothes do indeed draw more attention than a long wool overcoat or sweatsuit.

Ask any woman whether they would choose to wear skimpy clothes or modest clothes while walking through a bad downtown neighborhood and they’ll nearly-unanimously opt for the modest clothes. Why? Because at a certain point, and in certain situations, skimpy clothes cease to be a mere attention-getter and instead become an indicator of profession. And rapists are more likely to target hookers because hookers are less likely to seek out law enforcement after the fact.

But these facts get in the way of attention whores who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Street whores, maybe, will look somewhat like these sluts. Higher class prostitutes will dress and act like ladies, at least when in public. But of course you will not find them in the bad neighborhoods, and most of them make sure that there is somebody who knows where they are, with whom they are and how long they are supposed to stay when they see a client. If a woman wants to be smart and avoid unpleasant stuff like being raped she should emulate the real life escorts, not play act the the image media paints of whores.

To be honest, I didn’t have much to work with this time around. Here we are, in the heat of a game-changing national election, in which the word “slut” is the #1 topic of conversation — and they can’t draw a decent crowd to a slut-themed political rally in protestiest city in the country? What gives?

Yes there are a lot of confused messages, a lot of sex workers, and certainly a lot of liberals. I wish they would start to be more rational, ie realize that the oppression of the Muslim countries is the serious threat and that socialism and liberalism actually wants more control on personal liberty (beyond the ‘Choice’) than Conservatives / Libertarians / and GOP.

If you are dressed up as if you are ‘for sale’ don’t be insulted if someone asks “how much”. At the same time we shouldn’t denigrate sluts, many are very good people that deserve our appreciation.

Yes, I noticed that the Seattle SlutWalk got a lot more attention this year than the SF edition. Seattle’s was somewhat bigger, altough still not huge — looks like about 500 people. And yes, there does seem to be more of a focus on the “sexy streetwalker” look than the “scary dyke” look.

Also disturbing to see how many signs at both marches were exactly the same — they seem to just copy them off a list of pre-approved suggestions. Only the freelance signs are worth noting.

In that Seattle photo essay you linked, this image is the most disturbing, looking as it does to be something from a pedophile’s photo album. Note to moms: DON’T SEND YOUR 12-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTERS TO A SLUTWALK.

Well, I certainly wouldn’t kick her out of bed for eating crackers, but in a public Sabbath I expect better. Wearing the collar does not a bunny make. Guys don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses, and all that.

More significantly, she seems to be completely unaware of how a constitutional republic works. In the United States, no politician gave you your rights, nor did you yourself “take” them — but rather they are GUARANTEED by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, to wit:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

No politicians involved. Nor do rights obtain as a result of your personal willpower. They pre-exist. You already have them. Poiliticians (and activists) can only take them away.

That’s why this particular sign reveals the fundamental ignorance of the Left.

Actually, politicians did give them the rights. The suffrage movement was backed by Republicans. It was very contentious. Just like abolition and civil rights were backed by Republicans. Also very contentious.

Of course, the majority of them now vote Democratic. This was predicted back then, too, in the arguments against suffrage. Unintended consequences does not mean unpredicted consequences.

I would have been very interested in hearing the crowd’s collective opinion on gender selection abortion. I suspect it’s one of those subjects that much like Islamic persecution of females is simply not discussed by a proper PC group.

The outrage only applies when it can be directed at white America and capitalism. Any anti-women customs, laws, attitudes and behavior committed by misogynistic Third World people or by the Protected Underclass is strictly off-limits and Must Not Be Mentioned. Thus, sex-selective abortion in China/India/elsewhere, legal wife-beating in Islam, abduction-marriages in Mexico, the epidemic of rape of Black women by Black men, second-class personhood for women in Palestine/Saudi Arabia/etc. is NEVER discussed at these things.

Black-on-white rape is a serious problem, too, much more than many people would want to admit. White-on-black rape, by contrast, is essentially a non-occurrence (I’m sure some exceptions could be found, NOT including hoaxes like Duke Lacrosse and Al Sharpton’s girl Tawna).

Actually, this is an issue that is discussed in feminist circles (same with Islamic persecution of females… I’m wondering where your assumptions arise from). Not surprising, seeing as it relates to reproductive rights and gender discrimination.

Personally, I believe a woman has the right to choose, regardless of her reasons for doing so. Yes it’s appalling, but policing women in terms of why they’re getting an abortion is a turn down the wrong path.

…so the message has to be dolled up in radical festoons to make it seem exciting.

Everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon, have their own special slot in the gripe industry.

This particular search for relevance is a bigger stretch:), reaching pretty far down to get to a gripe…main message seems to be…”I’ll bash you over the head with this sign if you think my provocative dress is an invitation.”

I just cannot fathom the depth of hate these people have. Sluts, socialist, communists, anarchists etc..
Can you imagine what it’s like having only 300 ppl on this planet you agree with? How long is their Sh!!te list of ppl they hate? Is all their free time taken up figuring out someone new to hate that day? These poor misguided, jealous, slackers…. would not last 3 minutes in the “utopian lands” they wish to emulate.
Classic leftist projection!

No one in the west. If there is any group they are protesting, it’s the islamos. But that’s not the narrative. The narrative is it’s the Christiban. And knucklehead statements like the one Akin made aren’t helping.

Precisely! As a woman, I have the right in this country to unload all of my personal guilt, confusion, regret and/or poor choices onto the man I’ve just slept with – whether he’s done anything wrong in his mind or not. I can kill his child without his permission, ruin his career without so much as a single shred of evidence, or have him labeled a sex offender for something that he truly believed was consensual (because I can, of course, withdraw my consent after we’ve already done the deed). Women already have the ultimate power when it comes to rape laws. What more do these women want, if not the freedom to act irresponsibly with no consequence?

What I’d like to see them teach little girls in school is exactly the message these Slut Walks are seemingly protesting – keep yourself safe and avoid putting yourself in a “date rape” or “party rape” situation in the first place (which does legitimately exist). Which, sorry to say, involves not dressing like a slut…

The point is not to protest rape itself but rape culture. Many people, whether they realize it or not, contribute to rape culture in ways big or small. I first became acquainted with it when my friend, who was 15 at the time, was drugged and gang raped by a group of men twice her age. There was even proof on video, yet despite this a good bulk of the trail seemed to revolve around what a “whore” the kid supposedly was, and in the end the men got off with a light sentence.

Yes, I know it was the defense attorney’s job to do what he could for those men, but the fact that bringing up a girl’s sexual history is even considered a good way to defend the act of rape speaks volumes. People make the argument “If you don’t want to get mugged, don’t wear expensive clothing or jewelry – the same applies to rape and short skirts”, but the thing is, you don’t see muggings being trivialized to the same extent as rape. Defense attorney’s don’t try to bring up the person’s attire, because they know that’s fucking ridiculous. Why doesn’t the same apply to rape?

““Don’t you dare call me a slut — I’m a slut!” doesn’t make much sense as a political stance.”

Perhaps if you grew up female, and you understood the feeling of being ashamed of your sexuality, you’d understand why these women feel the need to celebrate it whilst drawing attention to the issue of “slut-shaming”. I personally don’t agree with the idea of reclaiming the word “slut”, but I certainly understand where they’re coming from.

I don’t usually think we need more laws in America, but I would put forward one more: the Truth In Protest Signs Act of 2012. Protest signs would be vetted for content and honesty. That would mean that the approved signs for this rally would be limited to “Daddy Didn’t Love Me”, “I Was Cute Before I Discovered Ben and Jerry’s” and “Picked Last In Gym Class, Damn You!” Other than those, attendees would have to carry blank squares of cardboard.

If it was not for Rahab the Harlot the walls of the city of great grapes would have never fallen. If it was not for that SLUT Bathsheba Solomon would never have been born building great great Temple for the Ark of the Covenaunt and he write the beauty Song of Solomon although his other books show he had mother issues carrying shame of nation gossiping how his Mama was a Slut. Jesus would not be born except by way of the SLUT Bathsheba
The Queen oF Sheba visiting Solomon after she see his great wisdom he gave her all her desire whatsoever she asked and she left satisfyed 1 Kings10:10

While this SlutWalk may have seemed diminished compared to last year’s, one has to take into account that in a sense, that’s just because their message (such as it is) has made the Major Leagues; for what was the DNC shindig in Charlotte, except SlutWalk writ large? There, too, we saw a confusing melange of gratification-oriented identity politics, with little or not appreciation for the actual challenges facing our nation. Was not the DNC’s first primetime speaker, the inimitable Ms. Fluke, not the ultimate SlutWalker?

I don’t understand (although, actually, I do) why they were bashing Republicans – didn’t the whole slut walk thing originate in that notoriously Republicna stronghold of Toronto, which is in Canada? Oh, that’s right, Limbaugh andAkin. I wonder, though, if you surveyed actual rapists, what their D/R/I leanings would be.

One has to wonder what the racial makeup of actual rapists is. My bet is a greater proportion of the diversity crowd than their actual population numbers. Other crime stats reflect this reality. Yet I see virtually no “persons of color” in these wildly popular protests; only people of pallor.

I think there might be a little more philosophical coherence here than you give them credit for.
To reconstruct it quickly: they are protesting the need for prudential precautions and that is what leads into their various utopia leftist ideologies. No one, except perhaps a few extremists from the religion of peace, believes that women who dress like sluts deserve to be raped. However, plenty of folks would say that it can be a foolish thing for a woman to do, just as they would say that it’s foolish to leave a car unlocked with keys in the ignition, or to flash wads of cash in a bad neighborhood, or any of the many other behaviors that can make one a target for predators. The Slutwalkers, it seems, are angry not because such prudential concerns sometimes seem to shade into blaming victims, but are angry that such prudential concerns are even needed. In the socialist utopia, there wouldn’t be those who prey on others, hence their anger at those who they see as obstructing the advent of said socialist paradise. If the goal is a world without sin, then these prudential concerns are at best distractions, and at worst in the way, from bringing about that wonderful world where the lion lies down with the lamb.

Lieber was born in Detroit, Michigan on April 24, 1961. As a youth growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, she was interested in the antiwar and civil rights movements. In junior high school, she wore glasses over her hair so she would look like Gloria Steinem, the feminist icon and revolutionary journalist.

I recall an interview with Steinem from several years ago (on Dick Cavett, or something along those lines), in which she casually dropped the rather irrelevant factoid that she had been a “beauty queen” at some point in her early life. (I have no idea whether it’s true.) Okay, Gloria. Why does that matter?

That’s not cognitive dissonance. She probably didn’t win, and that’s why she went on a feminist tirade. There is nobody more narcissistic than a beauty pageant contestant. If she would have won, she’d have just been Gloria Steinem the beauty pageant winner.

Almost all SF protest marches start or terminate in Mission Dolores Park.

The park is located in the Mission District. The Mission District was formerly a latino neighborhood that has been largely gentrified by industrious techies. The vanguard of this gentrification the caucasian leftists who formed latin american solidarity movements back in the 1980′s. The goal of these solidarity movements was to assist latin american communists in Nicaraugua and El Salvador.

The Central American wars passed, but the lefties stayed in the Mission soon to be followed by high paid techies. The Mission District is one of the few neighborhoods in the United States with a declining latino population.

Mission Dolores Park was named after the Mission Dolores which was founded by Franciscan Priests back in 1776 — with the goal of bringing Christian Civilization to the local Indians.

The Mission District just keeps on churning. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

‘It tells the hilarious tale of in-fighting within the Freedom Socialist Party and the Peace and Freedom Party, and the outrage that erupted when celebrity usurper Roseanne Barr swooped in and stole the presidential nomination from a true radical. VP candidate Cindy Sheehan even comes in for some deserved vitriol, for double-dealing and making contradictory statements.’

That flyer is hilarious for a reason: the script and actors are rightist smear agents. When other countries do this, it’s called corruption or a human rights abuse. But then other countries don’t do this half as much as in the U.S.

The other dopes pictured are the sad product of the system they are protesting. It’s not a lack of rights that makes protest rarer overseas, but a lack of losers to protest.

I don’t want to sound like I want to compete; but, maybe we should have a march/parade for old farts like me. We could call it Drag Your Balls On The Ground Day. The only problem is that this parade would last only about ten yards.

Hey, I’ll try anything. I did what you recommended and used a skateboard for my proud walk. It was going fine until I hit a pothole. I get out of the hospital in two days. But, I’m still proud and almost made it around the block.

Apparently, there is a spin-off group, akin to NAMBLA that wanted it’s voice heard.

The National Unwilling And Non Consensual Engagers want to be heard. They say that consent is not all that’s it’s cracked up to be. Roman Polanski and Whoopi Goldberg were asked to speak it is rumored, but scheduling conflicts being what they are, they couldn’t get…you know…a commitment commitment.

Also, the band Bumping Uglies had to cancel as well. They had to pipe in Chicago’s hit Questions 67 and 68. Thankfully,ANSWER never requested an encore.

After that wonderful speech, I fell in love with Sally Leiber. I have to say that she’s plum purtifull……………as long as you keep you eyes closed. I haven’t seen sich women since I been on the farm in the Ozarks.

Remember, slut clothes are to intimidate and impress other women, so as to have more men available for those with slut clothes.

Of course, they lie when they say slut clothes are not, in the end, to attract a man.

All of their neo-Marxism is lies. The attractive ones are just playing because they know they can find a good man anytime. The ugly ones are just jealous and taking their rejection by men out on men by lying and accusing men of rape.

I guess I’m going to have to clarify that. I absolutely respect the right to express ideas and beliefs through the various mediums of free speech and the right to lawfully and peacefully assemble for such purpose. Such mediums do not include trespassing, threats of violence, violence, destruction or vandalism of public or private property, kidnapping, rape, or murder. It seems some folks in Egypt and Libya don’t understand the mannered methods of free expression, but they are awfully good at displaying their mindless, hateful, stupidity.

Zombie, first of all, you are the greatest. But to all the little leftist out there pushing this crap: You win. We take you for your word. You truly are an assemblage of sluts. And your moms are *so* proud!

I expected to be able to comment “Aren’t sluts supposed to be hot or something,” but actually, 3 or 4 of them looked pretty good. Which is only about %3 or the total, but still. But then, this is a new breed of frigid slut, or temperance movement slut, or really church-lady slut, when you think about it. So none of them really deserve the elevated title “slut.”

They would aspire to be a ‘quean’, but are ignorant of what that word means…….

Instead we have a public display of collective distemper directed at a society that doesn’t share in their rather high opinion of themselves. I will not have it. I am not a slut, I am a lady. Calling yourselves sluts is inaccurate – you are at best minges……….

Nobody is guaranteed safety out there . If you are flashing a wad of cash somebody may be looking to rob you. If you are yelling for the opposing team you may get some nasty comebacks. If you are acting slutty you may get some unwanted attention. The pretty bird flies away for fear. the Rose has thorns.

Well, it used to be that being a cock-tease (more accurate than slut here, just being anthropological) was considered very bad manners.

Also sorta dangerous and dumb.

You know, like walking around in your underwear and your birthday suit on the STREETS, girlfriends. You can’t expect the men to exercise ALL the restraint.

Tho the moistly liberal weenies we can see on this march look like they’ve been gelded already, so no worries! (but you know they’re hoping desperately for a scrap of kindness when the march is over! poor suckers.)

Short answer: No. All new material in this post. What would I possibly achieve by re-using photos, other than looking like a fool?

The only reason that some of the messages may seem the same is that SlutWalk, at its core, is pretty repetitive — after the first few minutes of folks trying to wrap their heads around the message, they “get it,” at which point there’s nothing more to say, so the participants just end up saying the same things over and over.

It’s like having a protest insisting that the sky is blue. No one disagrees with you, and there’s only so many ways you can say “The sky is blue.”

The sluts were kind of dull (been there, done that, as it were), but the Durham/Lopez 2012 flyer gave me a giggle fit. It’s like reading the summary of a soap opera episode. As the Little Red Book Turns?

(maybe Peta Lindsay withdrew her canidacy because she got involved with WORD/ANSWER and was therefore too busy to be president? Her name is on both flyers–GASP! Intrigue! I can’t wait until next week’s episode)

It’s insane that I have to preface this with the disclaimer that I, too, would never, ever condone rape under any circumstances. However, it is obvious to all, except perhaps to these self-proclaimed “sluts”, that if a woman DELIBERATELY selects provocative clothes the DELIBERATELY goes to places where she might not be that safe then DELIBERATELY mingles with the wrong sorts of men in those places, eventually the inevitable will occur. Far be it from me to blame HER in any way, yet obviously she made three choices that pretty much made the end result inevitable. Would the guy probably rape even if she didn’t make those choices? Yes, no real doubt about that. But the point is, NOT HER! He wouldn’t rape her. Rather some other stupid self-proclaimed “slut” who did. Get it?

This has nothing to do with logic. It is merely one more incoherent passive aggressive tantrum from the Leftocracy. They are hell-bent on a course of conduct which will provoke somebody to react. Then, of course, that reaction is automatically an act of oppression, which of course proves that they are all oppressed, and need a government department, $100 billion worth of grants and studies, not to mention whole new University departments, and last, but not least, an entire new philosophy of law to take care of them. “Slut Justice”, anyone?

Uh, thanks for sharing. You evidently worked hard (whoops! that’s not being slutty, no wait. it only applies to females, unless you have a different dictionary than I do. In which case, uh, never mind). You put in (I’m not implying anything by that phrase) a lot of work. Some how, though, I feel like I’m rather dumber for having read what you wrote. Or, it could be that the material, while bountiful (that’s not trampy is it?) just didn’t add much to our collective intelligence. Anyway, keep up (whoops!) the, the, well, whatever it is that you do. And, uh, please know that I mean well.

Comparing the two, the Seattle one looked more mainstream and less freaky. Also the women better looking and more “hetero-normative” than the San Francisco one, at least from the shots, which I know is not a scientific sample.

Also odd, I have noticed many less Obama stickers in San Francisco than in Seattle.

I don’t know, but I think I liked the the Hookers Ball, the Cow Palace, 1978 better. Speaking of the Cow Palace there was some real heffers in that slut walk. I can just see ‘em line dancing to Ian Dury and Block Heads:Sex and drugs and rock and roll! Sex and drugs and rock and roll… Whoa! Ian’s on You tube, the 77 concert, live. Yeah. Far out! Maybe the girls will have a hooker walk next year?

It’s funny how most of you, including this author, do not seem to do well enough research on Slutwalk itself (I can count a a handful of ASSUMPTIONS and very one-sided comments that do not reflect Slutwalk ideals.) Get your facts straight. Oh and also, your reader’s comments well reflect what kind of audience you attract. WOW.

I can count about a thousand inaccurate ASSUMPTIONS underlying the SlutWalk philosophy and nothing but one-sided messages coming out of the SlutWalkers.

My facts are very straight. If you want a deeper analysis, then (as mentioned repeatedly in the essay) check out my original 2011 SlutWalk essay.

As for the “kind of audience” — that itself proves my point. Men in general are brutes. Deal with it. Wishful thinking that you can change them with self-defeating mindgames won’t make any difference.

Gender is not a cultural construct. And that goes doubly for men. The sooner we all admit this obvious (and previously unquestioned) fact, the quicker we can face reality.

If you can’t see that SlutWalk is based on a variety of ridiculous and unproven feminist theories, combined with circular and meaningless tautologies, then you still got a whole lot of learnin’ to do. And SF State is definitely NOT the place you’re going to get that learnin’.

I would 100% support a SlutWalk in the Middle East. These people have it bad compared to what? I visited a Soviet nostalgia forum some time ago. I read some posts by the true hardcore socialists (not the phony liberal western types, the real totalitarian ones). They advocated banning both pornography and prostitution. Because it “exploits” women. These girls will turn into the Junior Anti Sex League should the real socialists win.

“Gender is not a cultural construct. And that goes doubly for men. The sooner we all admit this obvious (and previously unquestioned) fact, the quicker we can face reality.

If you can’t see that SlutWalk is based on a variety of ridiculous and unproven feminist theories, combined with circular and meaningless tautologies, then you still got a whole lot of learnin’ to do. And SF State is definitely NOT the place you’re going to get that learnin’.”

Now, I am an attendee of this year’s SlutWalk, and I have my two cents to contribute. So before you shut me down as a loose, uneducated, foolish girl who just can’t get any, at least listen. I don’t ask that you agree, just hear me out.

Gender is probably not a cultural context in the way you (assuming, sorry) meant to say. X and Y chromosomes are very real things, and I understand that. However, the expectations that people make for men and women to be are very much constructed. Boys are expected to be burly and sporty, women quiet and docile.If you don’t agree with said statement, then I give up. But it’s true.

It’s also true that anyone who doesn’t perfectly fit into the mold assigned by their sex chromosomes is somehow devalued. A skinny man who plays violin is not “manly”, and a woman who is outspoken and sporty is “too masculine”. These are cultural constructs.

Feminist mean to say that people should not be EXPECTED to fit these molds. I, for example, am a girl who dresses in skirts and dresses and florals. I don’t believe that that makes me any more of a woman than a girl dressed up in basketball shorts, and I certain don’t think that I am “worth” more than her.

And, I will have you know that many of my fellow feminists are incredibly highly educated (Ivy leagues, Stanford, you name it). And even if one did attend SF State, as you blatantly infer applies to all of us, that doesn’t mean that s/he deserves any less respect.

However, the expectations that people make for men and women to be are very much constructed. Boys are expected to be burly and sporty, women quiet and docile.If you don’t agree with said statement, then I give up. But it’s true.

It’s also true that anyone who doesn’t perfectly fit into the mold assigned by their sex chromosomes is somehow devalued.

Not only is gender as a biological reality not a cultural construct, but gender roles are mostly not a cultural construct either. When academics say “gender is a cultural construct,” what they really mean is that “gender roles are a cultural construct.”

But — and this is the core of the matter that they refuse to accept because it undermines their entire worldview — gender-related behaviors, attitudes and personality traits are strongly determined by your biological sex. What do you think those chromosomes do, aside from give one side an outie and the other an innie? Chromosomes affect the brain, and the brain determines our behavioral gender roles.

Yes, some small percentage of people will be variants at the edges of the spectrums, but the vast majority of men act “like men” because they are bioloigically determined to do so, and women tend to act like women because they are biologically determined to do so. This is so obvious that no one even bothered to “defend” this position until it was baselessly attacked by feminist academics starting in the ’70s, with absolutely no data to back up their attack.

Men have much more testosterone being generated constantly in their bodies which makes them more aggressive, more violent, more domineering, and more muscular. Men are physically larger. Men are more amoral when it comes to the sexual drive — they tend to want to screw anything that moves, regardless of the emotional or moral consequences. Etc., and in reverse for women.

Practically none of this is “cultural” – it is biological. Study after study has proven this.

Perhaps it IS biologically determined; that’s not the point. What I mean to say is that, just because a woman is “masculine” and a man is “feminine” does not mean that they are worth any less, or that they should be treated as such. Like, take for example, the Olympics this past summer. Muscular, strong women were called “butch” and “gross”– as if that should be any reason for them to be disrespected and downright insulted in such a way! And the same goes for men.

A perfect example is you commentators’ treatment of the bearded woman. So what if she IS bearded, and doesn’t look like you want her to look? That doesn’t mean she’s not a woman. Calling her unattractive doesn’t make you any smarter than her, and these kind of unsupported connections that you all are making between her appearance and her intellect are rude and (dare I say?) pretty stupid. She deserves just as much respect as the next person.

When it comes down to it, feminism is all about respect. As your parents and teachers probably told you when you were young, “Everyone deserves respect”. NOT “Everyone deserves respect (unless they’re ugly, poor, too masculine, too feminine, or otherwise ‘different’ from you)” This kind of maltreatment is unnecessarily rude and really just messed up, and definitely no way to conduct any sort of efficient political discourse.

You’re going off on an irrelevant sidetrack. SlutWalk is NOT about giving respect to manly women. In fact, quite the opposite. It’s about giving respect to women who are perceived as extra attractive or feminine. All of the signs say, essentially, “Just because I’m sexy doesn’t mean you can rape me.” What the signs don’t say is “Just because I’m bearded and masculine doesn’t mean you can rape me.”

But to address your point: This whole modern insistence on “demanding respect” is absurd and invariably counter-productive. The more that you insist that someone “respect” you, the less likely you are to get it. Telling people how and what they are allowed to feel only pisses those people off.

Why should you or anyone care what others think of you? If you have self-respect, then you don’t need to manipulate the emotions of others to prop up your own esteem.

It is the nature of humankind to seek normalcy and reassurance in group uniformity and predictability. Doesn’t matter what era, tribe or culture you come from, if you are unusual or unexpected in some way, then you are going to have to deal with stares, remarks or rejection. Doesn’t matter if you have three arms growing out of your chest, or are 19 feet tall, or are a woman with a beard or a man with breasts, people are going to look askance at you and/or ostracize you. I’m not saying that this is good or desireable, it just is, an inescapable part of human nature.

The same would apply in reverse as well: If a woman showed up at SlutWalk holding a sign that says, “Well, actually, with me at least, sometimes ‘No’ does mean ‘Yes’; a little faux-resistance and play-acting makes the sex more fun,” that woman would be ostracized and treated like a despicable outsider — and you would be doing the ostracizing, because you doesn’t like what that woman’s message.

I would disagree. It’s about giving respect to all women, regardless of appearance. It doesn’t take too much research to find that women of all shapes, sizes, colors, what have you are raped. I’m not saying that none of us women would take these “safety precautions”, we’re trying to insist that it’s a “necessary evil”– one that needn’t be, and one that people need to speak out against. When you say that a woman is raped for dressing provocatively, you are a. perpetuating what is essentially a myth; it has been proven over and over that women aren’t raped because they sexually provoke the perpetrator (as you all imply with the comments about sexy attire = rape), it’s usually because a man desires to exert control over them (it’s more about the power trip than about the sex), and b. you lessen the fault of the perpetrator. That’s like saying that, if a psycho murderer decides to kill someone who’s maybe a little annoying, it’s the victim’s fault for being annoying. Who’s committing the crime here?

I don’t particularly mind the mockery and derision; I’m all for effective debate. However, when someone steps over using sound logic and resorts to complete lack of tact (from your commenters: “they do smell like dead fish. On the bright side, there is HIV.” “Figures the speaker is a joo” “I’d probably listen more if they were naked”, among a plethora of others), that’s when I have a problem. That’s not effective argument, that’s not efficient, and that certainly does COMPLETELY NOTHING to make us question our convictions. If you or your commenters just want to be rude, you have the right to do so– just don’t expect us to find any iota of value or reasoning in your statements.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between “faux-resistance” and ACTUAL resistance: it’s what separates playfulness with RAPE. And if you or any other man ever feels like his actions could ever be considered rape, stop and make sure. Clearly there’s some miscommunication going on. Rape is NOT an accident.

Also, what I’m getting out of your comment about ostracism being “an inescapable part of human nature.” is, “it’s okay to be a bully because that’s just what people do.” Sure, it is a human instinct to reject what is unfamiliar, but just like it isn’t a justification for racism, it’s not justification for ostracizing people who look a little different.

Also, hate to break it to you, but I know for a fact that the young girls in your picture were never asked for their permission for you to take a picture of them: a big no-no for any journalist, especially considering that they are minors. Luckily for you, they aren’t suing… but you should really be careful. Avoiding litigation is what I personally would consider a “safety precaution”. Honestly, that’s pretty dumb.

If you go to a public political protest, you are giving permission and in fact seeking out to be publicized. That has been resolved legally countless times. I addressed this issue in my original essay and in its comments extensively.

This meta-extension of the absurd SlutWalk message of holding a public protest, and seeking out coverage and publicity, and then when you don’t like the publicity you get, retroactively withdrawing “permission” for anyone to discuss you, is exactly what I discussed at length in my original essay — the whole “Look at me/Don’t look at me” thing.

This is the real world, Michelle, so it’s time to get used to it: When you present yourself in public, you neither have the ability to nor the right to dictate how or if people respond to you. You may want to get kudos, love and respect from everyone, but you may instead get mockery and derision. That’s life. If you don’t want to take that risk, then don’t insist that everyone take note of you.